An honest question to democrats

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Hillary in 08 is a real possibility.

Running, maybe. Winning, no way. I think she's too extreme to win the election. Plus, the majority of middle America isn't ready to elect a female president. Especially in our war against terrorism. I think hillbilly America (perhaps myself included) feel more comfortable having an aggressive man in power during a war.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Begalas and Carville?

In another thread about Bushs bounce I brought up my conspiracy theory about the DNC putting a stooge out there so they can get Hillary ready in 2008. I brought up some valid points to at least make it seem remotely possible, even in the tiniest of possibilities.

I think some of them were

1. Lackluster convention with no msg
2. Vietnam vet who bashed his fellow vets when he got home
3. Liberal who leans to the left of Kennedy
4. Man who takes all sides to any issue.
5. Slow response to swift boat ads and was really poor in what little response they sent out
6. No real msg about much of anything other than "Im not Bush".

See that first line in your sig??

 

[Gravity]

IN short, they are preparing their concession speech. Even Clinton and his cronies can't save this train wreck. It's all over except for the announcement of Hillary Rodham Rodham that she will run in '08 as soon as Kerry leaves the microphone to say "we gave it a good run."

 

[ciba]

Originally posted by: Todd33

5. Slow response to swift boat ads and was really poor in what little response they sent out

They attempted to not respond and not sink to that level. Do you thiink canidates should personally respond to every negative ad?

When a negative ad raises a genuine question about your key campaign issue, then I think it is appropriate to respond. It need not be specific, but at least in general terms.

For example, I don't expect Bush to respond to the accusations about his guard duty because he isn't actively pushing that as part of his reelection bid. I do expect him to respond to legitimate questions regarding the war in Iraq.

All I've seen in most of the televised/radio Kerry speeches has been:

1) I served in Vietnam.
and
2) Bush is taking us in the wrong direction. (mind you, Kerry doesn't give a whole lot of indication of the direction he wants to take us in)

His new advisors are even telling him to let his Vietnam service drop. Once he does that, the SWVFT "problem" will go away.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: ciba

Originally posted by: Todd33

5. Slow response to swift boat ads and was really poor in what little response they sent out

They attempted to not respond and not sink to that level. Do you thiink canidates should personally respond to every negative ad?

When a negative ad raises a genuine question about your key campaign issue, then I think it is appropriate to respond. It need not be specific, but at least in general terms.

For example, I don't expect Bush to respond to the accusations about his guard duty because he isn't actively pushing that as part of his reelection bid. I do expect him to respond to legitimate questions regarding the war in Iraq.

All I've seen in most of the televised/radio Kerry speeches has been:

1) I served in Vietnam.
and
2) Bush is taking us in the wrong direction. (mind you, Kerry doesn't give a whole lot of indication of the direction he wants to take us in)

His new advisors are even telling him to let his Vietnam service drop. Once he does that, the SWVFT "problem" will go away.

Actually Kerry Has laid out his ideas and he has told us the direction he wishes to Take the country. The republicans are the only ones claiming he hasnt. Granted they are interested too much in what he has too say to actually Listen. When Your mind is closed, you are going to only hear what you think he said.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Genx87
Begalas and Carville?

In another thread about Bushs bounce I brought up my conspiracy theory about the DNC putting a stooge out there so they can get Hillary ready in 2008. I brought up some valid points to at least make it seem remotely possible, even in the tiniest of possibilities.

I think some of them were

1. Lackluster convention with no msg
2. Vietnam vet who bashed his fellow vets when he got home
3. Liberal who leans to the left of Kennedy
4. Man who takes all sides to any issue.
5. Slow response to swift boat ads and was really poor in what little response they sent out
6. No real msg about much of anything other than "Im not Bush".

And now to top it off they bring on two guys who are what I would call problem children in Carville and Begalas(sp). Clinton brought these two guys on in 94 and the democrats got their ass handed to them. When it was Bills turn to rerun in 96 he essentially got rid of them.

Sitting back at this I honestly have to wonder if they really arent trying to sabotage their own man so they can get Hillary in 2008?

I know it is unthinkable but these guys are running a horrible compaign since the convention and this is an even worse move.

I wont even bring up the ethics issues with CNN keeping these two guys on That is for a totally different thread.

Recipe: Take RNC talking points, pose them as a "serious" question and pretend not to be trolling. Nice.

once again a pot calling the kettle black. :roll:

Don't know much about Begalas. Carville, though, is a campaigning genius.

I like the man and he is very entertaining. Married to a Conservative as well! I don't like him Bad mouthing Zell Miller though he was a lil rough on a guy who used to be his employer. Yes he ran Zell's campaign Ironic? No he is there to refute Miller plain and simple. Plus the cute lass as communication director is fumbling.

 

[arsbanned]

Running, maybe. Winning, no way. I think she's too extreme to win the election.

This coming from a Bush supporter.... My God, the IRONY!

 

[lordtyranus]

That's your opinion. What message did the RNC have, 911.. 911.. 911 war on terror? oh ya, bash Kerry. did you watch the speeches and hear any of it? Or did Hannity tell you there was no message?

Some ideas Bush told us are to simplify US taxes, to appoint proper supreme court justices, and to defend marraige.

That was for 2003, when he was on the campaign trail. The further analysis by the same people shows Kerry wasn't even in the top ten liberal senators.

Link? I find it odd how being on a campaign trail makes you a super extreme liberal. Had the dems put up someone moderate I would have voted for him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...Jul18?language=printer

It says there that Kerry is on the liberal end of a liberal party. He may not be top 10 but that isn't saying very much.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

That's your opinion. What message did the RNC have, 911.. 911.. 911 war on terror? oh ya, bash Kerry. did you watch the speeches and hear any of it? Or did Hannity tell you there was no message?

Some ideas Bush told us are to simplify US taxes, to appoint proper supreme court justices, and to defend marraige.

That was for 2003, when he was on the campaign trail. The further analysis by the same people shows Kerry wasn't even in the top ten liberal senators.

Link? I find it odd how being on a campaign trail makes you a super extreme liberal. Had the dems put up someone moderate I would have voted for him.

Appoint proper supreme court justices? Like people that disgree with most Americans on abortion? How do you "defend" marriage? By attacking Iraq?

What is your definition of a moderate? Someone who hates blacks and Muslims? Or simply someone that thinks gays are hellspawn?

 

[glenn1]

The problem has nothing to do with Begala or Carville. The problem is that Kerry is a lackluster candidate with no charisma or passion. Couple that with the fact that he doesn't even have the virtue of having some big, inspiring ideas about what his Presidency would be like (even if they were bad ideas) and you have a recipe for a guy who can't even excite those out there who don't really care for Bush and have been looking for an alternative since he was sworn in.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: HelloDeli
Hillary is the Antichrist. She will be elected in 2008 and her term will end in 2012, then end of the Mayan calendar. She will gather her forces of evil throughout her term to make a last stand against Christianity. Christ will return and cast Her and Her armies into the bottomless pit, while the saved ascend to Heaven with Christ and spend eternity with God.

Points for knowing the Mayan calendar and their age old end of the world prophecies, but it ain't got nuttin' to do with Christianity or Hillary, chucko -- that's mixing your cultural metaphors.

If you wish to put paramount credence in such things, 2012 would be about the right time frame for the long aggrieved, presently outmatched but diehard angry Muslim terrorist base to finally get their hands on the big equalizer, off an American city, and set the inevitable sequence of big bang reactions in motion -- Israel, Iran, US, etc. -- just like WWl began, even though none of the principles really wanted it.

. . . Again, only if you assign paramount credence to such things.

 

[Veramocor]

3. Liberal who leans to the left of Kennedy

and

4. Man who takes all sides to any issue.



Which is it Genx87? Whatever you think of Kerry hate him or like him you have to realize that these two statements can't BOTH be true.

Any issue can have a bunch of sides, liberal, conservative, moderate to name a few.

If he is such a hardcore liberal who is the most liberal senator in America then he can't be flip flopping. If 3 is true then he's a man of strong convictions whether you like those liberal convictions or not.

If hes flip flopping then's he's taking many positions some of which by definition can't be liberal! If four is true hes a man who does not have stong convictions, but also votes at least moderately if not conservatively on at least some issues some of the time.


The worse thing you could logically say about him (whether or not its true) is that he's very liberal and says different things about an issue. And if you said that I'd probally shorten it to calling him a very liberal politician.

 

[T2T III]

Originally posted by: Gravity
IN short, they are preparing their concession speech. Even Clinton and his cronies can't save this train wreck. It's all over except for the announcement of Hillary Rodham Rodham that she will run in '08 as soon as Kerry leaves the microphone to say "we gave it a good run."

Amen, Brother. Amen. :thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[glenn1]

Which is it Genx87? Whatever you think of Kerry hate him or like him you have to realize that these two statements can't BOTH be true.

Any issue can have a bunch of sides, liberal, conservative, moderate to name a few.

And each side can propose more than one position for each issue, some or all of which can be wrong or wrong to different degrees. For example Bush flip-flopped on the issue of steel tariffs from not having them (ideal position) to imposing them (which was wrong) to shortening them to 18 months (still wrong) to dropping them altogether (the proper decision albeit one which should not have been necessary to make in the first place). And despite all this, I'd still call Bush a conservative and yet still say he flip-flopped on the tariffs issue despite getting it wrong several times in a row.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: ciba

Originally posted by: Todd33

5. Slow response to swift boat ads and was really poor in what little response they sent out

They attempted to not respond and not sink to that level. Do you thiink canidates should personally respond to every negative ad?

When a negative ad raises a genuine question about your key campaign issue, then I think it is appropriate to respond. It need not be specific, but at least in general terms.

For example, I don't expect Bush to respond to the accusations about his guard duty because he isn't actively pushing that as part of his reelection bid. I do expect him to respond to legitimate questions regarding the war in Iraq.

All I've seen in most of the televised/radio Kerry speeches has been:

1) I served in Vietnam.
and
2) Bush is taking us in the wrong direction. (mind you, Kerry doesn't give a whole lot of indication of the direction he wants to take us in)

His new advisors are even telling him to let his Vietnam service drop. Once he does that, the SWVFT "problem" will go away.

Actually Kerry Has laid out his ideas and he has told us the direction he wishes to Take the country. The republicans are the only ones claiming he hasnt. Granted they are interested too much in what he has too say to actually Listen. When Your mind is closed, you are going to only hear what you think he said.

Yeah...why is that? I was talking w/a friend of mine and he said the same thing. Kerry doesn't have any detailed plans. I asked him did he not see the DNC? Did he not see or hear the speech today? Has he not visited the website? Has he not really listened to Kerry at all?


Bush is one-dimensional and appeals to the lowest common denominator. Kerry's been giving maybe too much detail and is working to simplify things with Carville, Begala, and Greenberg onboard.

 

[lordtyranus]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

That's your opinion. What message did the RNC have, 911.. 911.. 911 war on terror? oh ya, bash Kerry. did you watch the speeches and hear any of it? Or did Hannity tell you there was no message?

Some ideas Bush told us are to simplify US taxes, to appoint proper supreme court justices, and to defend marraige.

That was for 2003, when he was on the campaign trail. The further analysis by the same people shows Kerry wasn't even in the top ten liberal senators.

Link? I find it odd how being on a campaign trail makes you a super extreme liberal. Had the dems put up someone moderate I would have voted for him.

Appoint proper supreme court justices? Like people that disgree with most Americans on abortion? How do you "defend" marriage? By attacking Iraq?

What is your definition of a moderate? Someone who hates blacks and Muslims? Or simply someone that thinks gays are hellspawn?

Proper supreme court justices are people who would strike down riffraff like affirmative action in our schools. You defend marraige by preventing a thousand year old sacred rite of humankind from being polluted.

My definition of a moderate would be someone who has a mix of what are considered liberal and conservative notions.

I asked him did he not see the DNC? Did he not see or hear the speech today? Has he not visited the website? Has he not really listened to Kerry at all?

Kerry was quite negative in his entire speech, talking more about what a president shouldn't do for a solid portion of the speech. He did glance over his economy, education, and healthcare plans, out of which he only went into the detail about the first one.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

I asked him did he not see the DNC? Did he not see or hear the speech today? Has he not visited the website? Has he not really listened to Kerry at all?

Kerry was quite negative in his entire speech, talking more about what a president shouldn't do for a solid portion of the speech. He did glance over his economy, education, and healthcare plans, out of which he only went into the detail about the first one.

Apparently, you heard snippets on Rush or Hannity.

Try reading the speech for yourself.

 

[lordtyranus]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

I asked him did he not see the DNC? Did he not see or hear the speech today? Has he not visited the website? Has he not really listened to Kerry at all?

Kerry was quite negative in his entire speech, talking more about what a president shouldn't do for a solid portion of the speech. He did glance over his economy, education, and healthcare plans, out of which he only went into the detail about the first one.

Apparently, you heard snippets on Rush or Hannity.

Try reading the speech for yourself.

I did read the speech myself. That's how I drew my conclusion.

The words shouldn't and don't pop up quite a few times. Towards the end he says "this is our economic plan.....". From then on there is substance, but before that it is mostly waffle.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: smashp
The Bible states the Antichrist is a man.

And this disqualifies Hillary.... how?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

I asked him did he not see the DNC? Did he not see or hear the speech today? Has he not visited the website? Has he not really listened to Kerry at all?

Kerry was quite negative in his entire speech, talking more about what a president shouldn't do for a solid portion of the speech. He did glance over his economy, education, and healthcare plans, out of which he only went into the detail about the first one.

Apparently, you heard snippets on Rush or Hannity.

Try reading the speech for yourself.

I did read the speech myself. That's how I drew my conclusion.

The words shouldn't and don't pop up quite a few times. Towards the end he says "this is our economic plan.....". From then on there is substance, but before that it is mostly waffle.

Your education failed you horribly. Seek a refund immediately.

 

[lordtyranus]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

I asked him did he not see the DNC? Did he not see or hear the speech today? Has he not visited the website? Has he not really listened to Kerry at all?

Kerry was quite negative in his entire speech, talking more about what a president shouldn't do for a solid portion of the speech. He did glance over his economy, education, and healthcare plans, out of which he only went into the detail about the first one.

Apparently, you heard snippets on Rush or Hannity.

Try reading the speech for yourself.

I did read the speech myself. That's how I drew my conclusion.

The words shouldn't and don't pop up quite a few times. Towards the end he says "this is our economic plan.....". From then on there is substance, but before that it is mostly waffle.

Your education failed you horribly. Seek a refund immediately.

Uh huh. Perhaps you are interested in Kerry's childhood or his wife. Personally, I am not.

I would recommend an education for yourself, but as our president wants to raise standards in schools, I wouldn't want to go against that.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

I would reccomend an education for yourself, but as our president wants to raise standards in schools, I wouldn't want to go against that.

I seem to have started a rating craze on P&N so let's continue it. Time to rate the comeback. I'm gonna have to give this was a measly 2/10.

First of all repeating the insult given to you is lame. -4. Next, misspelling in a sentence about education is another -4. I'm stil giving you 2 for inserting some talking point in there. I'm nice like that.

 

[lordtyranus]

Wow, aren't you generous. I think I'll go cry in my corner for a while.

By the way, it's "misspell". So -4 for that, and -3 for your nonsense post. I'm giving you 3/10 for the smiley face at the end. After all, I am a compassionate conservative.

 

[Infohawk]

lordtyranus, what did I tell you about copying? Also, editing really takes away from the final effect of your post.